Welcome to the new DiscussCESM forum!
We are still working on the website migration, so you may experience downtime during this process.

Existing users, please reset your password before logging in here: https://xenforo.cgd.ucar.edu/cesm/index.php?lost-password/

Known issue with consistency check for tr_aero and ntr_aero


Staff member
The issue arises when a user sets

tr_aero = .false.

in user_nl_cice, but doesn't change anything else. This conflicts with the
assumptions built into the default specification of ntr_aero (as far as I can
tell). See below for the diagnosis. This showed up when running CICE with
bounds checking enabled. I'm guessing that there should at least be a runtime
test whether the tr_aero and ntr_aero settings are compatible.

More details,

a) The model is built with


and (from cice/bld/configure)

my $cice_cppdefs = " ... -DNTR_AERO=$ntr_aero";

From config_definition.xml:

"CICE_CONFIG_OPTS are normally set as compset variables (e.g., -ntr_aero 3)

and in my env_build.xml.

so nothing is being set and 3 is the default for this compset?

b) in ice_domain_size.F90 the parameters n_aero and max_ntrcr are set to

n_aero = NTR_AERO
max_ntrcr = 18

(so n_aero = 3 here).

c) user_nl_cice specifies

tr_aero = .false.

d) in ice_init.F90

if (tr_aero) then
nt_aero = ntrcr + 1
ntrcr = ntrcr + n_aero*4 !MH 2 for snow soot and 2 for ice
!MH for multiple (n_aero) aerosols
nt_aero = max_ntrcr

So nt_aero = 18

e) in ice_mechred.F90

if (n_aero >= 1) then
do iaero=1,n_aero
msoot(m,iaero) = msoot(m,iaero) &
+ vsrdgn(ij)*(c1-fsnowrdg) &
*(trcrn(i,j,nt_aero +4*(iaero-1),n) &
+ trcrn(i,j,nt_aero+1+4*(iaero-1),n))

so (n_aero = 3 >= 1) and nt_aero + 1 + 4*(iaero-1) = 18 + 1 + 0 = 19, or +4
= 23 or +8 = 27.

However, trcrn is declared as

real (kind=dbl_kind), dimension (nx_block,ny_block,max_ntrcr,ncat), &
intent(inout) :: &
trcrn ! ice tracers

so the max 3rd index is max_ntrcr == 18.

Conclusion: It appears that



tr_aero = .false.

are incompatible.